I wish we knew this with certainty.
Qatar don't know the sport. Ratcliffe feels like continuity Glazers. Granted, there'll be money there but not the nous to apply it correctly.
Nervous about the next move.
I don't think 92F will be too active on the sporting side. They don't need to be! I really think they're in it mostly for the property investment side of things.
Manchester United have been close to the biggest transfer spenders in Europe over the last decade. And that's with the handicap of £1.6bn worth of debt/dividend payments. Imagine this table if you added in that extra money we just threw away to service the loans and pay the Glazers! £2500million would have looked pretty unstoppable. Though, of course, the inconvenient truth is that FFP would kick in before that even became possible.
1. Manchester City – £948.19million
2. Manchester United – £914.52million
3. PSG – £767.39million
4. Arsenal – £548.28million
5. Barcelona – £472.88million
6. Juventus – £467.6million
7. AC Milan – £415.76million
8. Chelsea – £388.35million
9. Liverpool – £340.64million
10. Bayern Munich – £388.58million
So neither Jassim nor Ratcliffe need to invest a penny into United's football costs. If they just fix the financial leaks going to the banks, they'll be grand. After that, the key will be finding best-in-class football people to run the club. But that's not an area either bidder has an advantage in, and they'd quite likely be trying to poach many of the same people from elite European clubs anyway.
My guess is that Jassim's consortium primarily wants to develop the area around Old Trafford, the same way other Qatari businessmen have done in London (Qatari interests have ownership in The Shard and Harrods, as a couple of high profile examples). It would mirror the same thing Manchester City's owners have done to develope the area around The Etihad. The blue side of Manchester even has this massive new state-of-the-art arena opening up in 2024:
These kind of projects in the Old Trafford hinterland would be where 92F would likely want to make most of their money, I reckon. I'm sure Ineos would run our football club just as well, but I don't think investment in surrounding infrastructure would be quite as high on their agenda. Property doesn't seem to be something they've shown much interest in elsewhere. And in Ratcliffe's own words, he just wants to "have some fun, so long as it’s sensible economically."
All in all, that's why I favour 92F. But I wouldn't be too upset about Ineos. I just think the people of Trafford/Manchester as a whole would see more benefit from the first option. And, most of all, I want the Glazers gone.